臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究主旨在於分析與描述將英文作文之同儕評鑑的方式施用於四名台灣大學生之情形，期能藉由深入的觀察訪談以及質化、量化的分析來探討同儕評鑑對台灣大學生的有效性與適用性。
此研究探討之問題共有四項：一、在同儕評鑑的的活動中，學生會以何種溝通模式來討論彼此的英文作文；二、學生對英文作文之同儕評鑑的方式有無任何的意見與感想；三、何種分組方式最能幫助兩人一組的同儕評鑑活動有效進行；由程度相同的學生所構成的組別是否能較由程度不同的學生所構成之組別更有效地進行同儕評鑑的活動；四、英文作文之同儕評鑑活動是否能有效適用於台灣之大學生。
研究結果顯示，學生會運用一系列的溝通技巧，諸如：評論、回應、重述、請求與組織，來幫助討論的進行，進而達到同儕評鑑的目的。在同儕合作的過程中，學生藉由循環討論與修正的方式來改善其英文作文品質，並同時增進其英文作文之能力。其二、學生賦予英文作文之同儕評鑑極高的評價。他們認為同儕評鑑中，合作與溝通的學習過程不但有助於寫作能力的進步，更能幫助口語能力的發展。其三、本研究發現，由程度相同的學生所構成之組別更能有效地進行同儕評鑑之活動。其四，根據整個實驗對學生的觀察與訪談結果顯示，同學們在英文寫作課中積極參與同儕評鑑之活動，並認為此活動提供了他們討論彼此文章的機會。因此，英文作文之同儕評鑑活動不但適用於台灣之大學生，更有助於其英文寫作能力的發展。

Abstract
Peer review is a kind of writing activity in which students assume the roles as real writers and readers to compose their writings as well as to develop their own writing abilities cooperatively. It has attracted much attention in the field of the first language (L1) and ESL writing since 1980. However, it is still a new issue in EFL environments, such as Taiwan. Therefore, more studies about the value and the effectiveness of peer review are needed in this area.
To discover the essential ingredients that might affect the outcome of peer review, a qualitative case study involved four randomly chosen students and five peer reviews was conducted in the local context of Taiwan to investigate Taiwanese university-level students’ actual task-related negotiations during peer review sessions, their perceptions of peer review, and the potential effects of grouping on peer review efficiency.
The finding of the study suggested that (1) The students did assess a variety of communicative strategies which included Reacting, Reproducing, Responding, Soliciting, and Structuring to facilitate the procedures of discussions and to achieve the goal of peer review. In addition, they were allowed to assume the responsibility to work cooperatively to improve their own writings and to develop the writing skills through recursive discussions and revisions in the peer review sessions; (2) The students appreciated the function of peer review in the development of language skills and abilities, and preferred to receive both peer feedback and teacher feedback simultaneously in peer reviews; (3) Peer review groups consisting of students with similar writing abilities would work better than of students with different writing abilities; (4) According to the students’ negotiations and perceptions, it was salient that the students participated in the peer reviews and supported one another’s learning actively. Also, they appreciated the opportunity to review others’ writing by assuming the roles of readers and writers. Hence, it could be affirmed that peer review was not merely a beneficial but also an appropriate activity for the Taiwanese university students in the study.

Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Literature Review
Chapter 3. Research Design And Methodology
Chapter 4. Results of The Study
Chapter 5. Summary, Discussion,and Implication

Bassey, M. (1999). Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Berg, E. C. (1999a). Preparing ESL students for peer response. TESOL Journal, 8, 20-25.
Berg, E. C. (1999b). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215-241.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching By Principle: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Bruffee, L. A. (1973). Collaborative learning: Some practical models. College English, 34, 634-643.
Bruffee, L. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind”. College English, 46, 635-652.
Carson, G. J. & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1-19.
Chen, Y. M. (1998). Peer review and learning styles. The proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching, 289-298.
Chou, M. C. (1998). How peer negotiations shape revisions. The proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching, 349-359.
Chou, M. C. (2000). Peer negotiations in an EFL writing classroom. The Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching, 90-107.
Connor, U. & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 257-276.
DE Guerrero, M. C. M. & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 485-496.
DiPardo, A. & Freedman, S. W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58, 119-149.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel. (Eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (p. 33-56). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company.
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elbow, P (1981). Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fanselow, J. (1987). Breaking Rules: Generating and Exploring Alternatives in Language Teaching. New York: Longman.
Fanselow, J. (1988). Let’s see: Contrasting conversations about teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 113-130.
Freedman, S. W. (1992). Outside-in and inside-out: Peer response groups in two ninth-grade classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 71-107.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Hafernik, J. J. (1983). The how and why of peer editing in the ESL writing class. Paper presented at the State Meeting of the California Association of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Language. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No: ED 253064).
Hariston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 76-88.
Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language writing, 1, 255-276.
Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., Huang, S.Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 307-317.
Johnson, D. M. (1989). Enriching task contexts for second language writing: Power through interpersonal roles. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students (p. 39-54). New York: Longman.
Johnson, D. M. (1992). Approaches to Research in Second Language Learning. New York: Longman.
Lantolf, J. P. & Appel, G. (1994). Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian perspectives on second language research. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (p.1-32). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company.
Lee, I. (1997). Peer reviews in a Hong Kong tertiary classroom. TESL Canada Journal, 15, 58-69.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.
Lockhart, C. & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45, 605-655.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom. ELT Journal, 46, 274-284.
Mangelsdorf, K. & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 235-254.
McGroarty, M. E. & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in classroom research: a study of peer revision. Language Learning, 47, 1-43.
McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (1997). Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction. New York: Longman.
Mendonça, C. & Johnson, K. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745-767.
Merriam, S. B. (1986). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Min, H. T. (1998). Variables influencing the peer review in an EFL writing class. The Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching, 745-752.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: harnessing students’ communicative power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Rone (Eds.), Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students (pp.207-219). New York: Longman.
Nelson, G.L. & Carson, J.G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113-131.
Nelson, G.L. & Murphy, J. M. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 171-193.
Nelson, G.L. & Murphy, J.M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-143.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265-289.
Reichelt, M. (1999). Toward a more comprehensive view of L2 writing: Foreign language writing in the U.S. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 181-204.
Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL Writing. London: Prentice-Hall.
Rentz, M. D. (1957). The Reader’s Journal: Authentic Readings for Writers. New Jersey: Regents/Prentice Hall.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 271-233.
Tang, G. M. & Tithecott, J. (1999). Peer response in ESL writing. TESOL Canada Journal 16, 20-37.
Villamil, O. S. & DE Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51-75.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In S, M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (p.17-50). Rowley: Newbury.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL Writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222.
Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21,697-715.